Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read it > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > about > > soul. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only > > one? > > > > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > > there is not much " soul " in this your words...... seem that there is one soul....or " many " souls.....in you, missing however... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > Please > > > read it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > only > > > one? > > > > > > > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > there is not much " soul " in this your words...... > > seem that there is one soul....or " many " souls.....in you, missing > > however... > > Marc What?!! Len Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:32 -0000 > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > > > ego > > > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist > of a > > > > set of beliefs > > > > about who and what you are. > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > > all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a > > > belief? Do you > > > > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term > > > 'context'? > > > > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when > > > writing: > > > " Your sense of self is your ego. " > > > it would be for you to explain what you mean. > > > > > > What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? > > > It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, > > > and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " > > > calls for something more than a vague notion, in > > > my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection > > > of thoughts " ? > > > > > > Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . > > > > > > I can appreciate your remark about context, > > > so I am asking you to fill that context in. > > > > > > For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about > > > that, " (in some context), but would not have > > > any sense of anything specific in saying that. > > > It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, > > > in other words, that a thought is not an object > > > that can be " considered " as such, even as a > > > subjective psychological entity. So there can > > > hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see > > > it. > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to > > explain > > > it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's > > me " . That > > > comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. > > > > What you seem to be saying is that you cannot imagine > > not having a sense of self. And if you cannot imagine it, > > then you conclude that everyone must have a sense of self. > > But that is not true. > > > > That " not having a sense of self " is virtually impossible > > to describe does not change the fact. > > > > > > > A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a > common > > > theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such > as > > 'my body, my > > > mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm > > happy'. That > > > sort of thing. > > > > > > A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, > > 'There are > > > 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own > opinions' > > or 'life > > > is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief > may, > > > itself, be a collection of thoughts. > > > > > > A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult > to > > > conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down > > for a proposal, or > > > a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. > > > > > > Does that make my comments more better clearer? > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > You say a thought is not an object, and I concur. > > > > That the notion of a collection of thoughts is > > not difficult to conceptualize (for you, not for > > me) does not make it a meaningful notion. > > > > Here's a way to perhaps understand what I am saying: > > Consider sensations instead of thoughts. > > A sensation is fleeting, is it not? > > > > So what sense would there be to talk about a > > " collection of sensations " ? > > > > Maybe my mathematical background is getting in the > > way of understanding you, as for me the notion of > > " collection " has a very sharp, formal meaning. > > I.e. for me a collection is a " set " . > > > > Do you mean by collection something more ambiguous, > > hazy? > > > > In Buddhism there is a teaching of the Buddha > > referred to as the Five Aggregates or Skandhas: > > > > The five aggregates (skandhas) are the scheme the Buddha chose > > to describe the nature of the individual human existence. It is > > a common doctrine among virtually all schools of Buddhist > > thought, being basic to the Buddha's philosophical teachings. > > The remarkable aspect of it is that it describes the human > > existance as a combination of physical and mental elements > > without recourse to the idea of a soul that is distinct from > > the mind, and -- most especially -- does not assert any > > governing agent that can be identified as a self within the > > individual. That is to say, each of the five aggregates is an > > equal component of the individual, which amounts to a > > conventional self only when all are present and functioning. > > > > Briefly, the five aggregates are: the material organism > > (ruupa); sensation (vedanaa); conception (sa~nj~naa); volition > > (sam.skaara); and consciousness (vij~nana). > > > > So perhaps your use of the term collection is along > > the lines of the *aggregation of* the " five aggregates " . > > > > Bill > > Hi Bill, > > interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... > > maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the > sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have > been existed before..... > > this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... > > all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions > > when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts > rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example > by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... > > > > Marc > yeah... more or less i'd say yeah Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > about > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > only one? > > > I would > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > define an > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > and out > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > Re: > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > point. > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' > > definition > > > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically > vauge > > and > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier > > and an > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us > > would call > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even > > more obscure by > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only > > seen used > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > arbitrary > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then > > using it in place of > > > another common term. > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > Bill > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > language......for analytic people..... > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > of what ignorance look like > > Marc > you're too much Marc! ) you have a point, not so much about Phil, as about how -- and this is TOTALLY subjective impression -- some seem to want to discuss the " illusions " as being real, that they want to paint in big letters how the dual nature of human existence is indeed a fact etc. etc.... What's the point in arguing that " illusion is real " ? I guess if illusion *seems* real to one then it can make sense to say it *is* real. But really, that's a contradiction. Bill Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 2:53:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:44:32 -0000 > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > P: Your sense of self is your ego. Your > > > > > ego > > > > > consists of a collection of thoughts. These thoughts consist > > of a > > > > > set of beliefs > > > > > about who and what you are. > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > no ego, no collection of thoughts, no set of beliefs. > > > > > all phantasy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are those your thoughts on the matter, or would you call it a > > > > belief? Do you > > > > > or do you not have a sense of self? Do you understand the term > > > > 'context'? > > > > > How far down the rabbit hole do you wanna go? > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Since it was you that used the term " sense of self " when > > > > writing: > > > > " Your sense of self is your ego. " > > > > it would be for you to explain what you mean. > > > > > > > > What is meant by: " a collection of thoughts " ? > > > > It seems a rather airy notion in the first place, > > > > and to use it as a defining term for the term " ego " > > > > calls for something more than a vague notion, in > > > > my view. Could you clarify the term: " a collection > > > > of thoughts " ? > > > > > > > > Similarly for the notion: " set of beliefs " . > > > > > > > > I can appreciate your remark about context, > > > > so I am asking you to fill that context in. > > > > > > > > For myself, I might say, " I had a thought about > > > > that, " (in some context), but would not have > > > > any sense of anything specific in saying that. > > > > It is a very loose manner of speaking. I mean, > > > > in other words, that a thought is not an object > > > > that can be " considered " as such, even as a > > > > subjective psychological entity. So there can > > > > hardly be a collection of thoughts, as I see > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to > > > explain > > > > it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's > > > me " . That > > > > comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. > > > > > > What you seem to be saying is that you cannot imagine > > > not having a sense of self. And if you cannot imagine it, > > > then you conclude that everyone must have a sense of self. > > > But that is not true. > > > > > > That " not having a sense of self " is virtually impossible > > > to describe does not change the fact. > > > > > > > > > > A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a > > common > > > > theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such > > as > > > 'my body, my > > > > mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm > > > happy'. That > > > > sort of thing. > > > > > > > > A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, > > > 'There are > > > > 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own > > opinions' > > > or 'life > > > > is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief > > may, > > > > itself, be a collection of thoughts. > > > > > > > > A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult > > to > > > > conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down > > > for a proposal, or > > > > a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. > > > > > > > > Does that make my comments more better clearer? > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > You say a thought is not an object, and I concur. > > > > > > That the notion of a collection of thoughts is > > > not difficult to conceptualize (for you, not for > > > me) does not make it a meaningful notion. > > > > > > Here's a way to perhaps understand what I am saying: > > > Consider sensations instead of thoughts. > > > A sensation is fleeting, is it not? > > > > > > So what sense would there be to talk about a > > > " collection of sensations " ? > > > > > > Maybe my mathematical background is getting in the > > > way of understanding you, as for me the notion of > > > " collection " has a very sharp, formal meaning. > > > I.e. for me a collection is a " set " . > > > > > > Do you mean by collection something more ambiguous, > > > hazy? > > > > > > In Buddhism there is a teaching of the Buddha > > > referred to as the Five Aggregates or Skandhas: > > > > > > The five aggregates (skandhas) are the scheme the Buddha chose > > > to describe the nature of the individual human existence. It is > > > a common doctrine among virtually all schools of Buddhist > > > thought, being basic to the Buddha's philosophical teachings. > > > The remarkable aspect of it is that it describes the human > > > existance as a combination of physical and mental elements > > > without recourse to the idea of a soul that is distinct from > > > the mind, and -- most especially -- does not assert any > > > governing agent that can be identified as a self within the > > > individual. That is to say, each of the five aggregates is an > > > equal component of the individual, which amounts to a > > > conventional self only when all are present and functioning. > > > > > > Briefly, the five aggregates are: the material organism > > > (ruupa); sensation (vedanaa); conception (sa~nj~naa); volition > > > (sam.skaara); and consciousness (vij~nana). > > > > > > So perhaps your use of the term collection is along > > > the lines of the *aggregation of* the " five aggregates " . > > > > > > Bill > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... > > > > maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the > > sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have > > been existed before..... > > > > this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... > > > > all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions > > > > when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts > > rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example > > by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > yeah... > more or less i'd say > yeah > > Bill one for sure..... " deep peace " can't accumulate " Karma " ..... mainly because it already lost most of it.... on the path to.....here and now Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " bigwaaba " <bigwaaba@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > > > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > > > Time, > > > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " > > > <wwoehr@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > > > Please > > > > > read it > > > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > > > about > > > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he > > defines > > > > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a > > *division*. > > > > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the > > mere > > > > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > > > > only one? > > > > > > I would > > > > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > > > > define an > > > > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > > > > and out > > > > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > > > > > > > Re: > > > > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > > > > point. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of > > > Marc's 'soul' > > > > > definition > > > > > > from his short comments. I found them to be > > characteristically > > > > vauge > > > > > and > > > > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language > > > barrier > > > > > and an > > > > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most > > of > > > us > > > > > would call > > > > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing > > > even > > > > > more obscure by > > > > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've > > > only > > > > > seen used > > > > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > > > > arbitrary > > > > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and > > then > > > > > using it in place of > > > > > > another common term. > > > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > > > > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > > > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > > > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > > > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > > > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an > > expression > > > > of what ignorance look like > > > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maybe it would be better a book on Deep Peace,mm? > > > > > > i don't think that the concerned person could write something on this > > subject.... > > > > Marc > > > > > > errr.... > I advise not getting too personal in remarks... > > I've defended you when I thought you were unfairly > characterized. The same applies here. > > What is Deep Peace except to not make distinctions? > > When no one is seen as higher or lower, > and all are seen as the One Truth in > manifestation, that to me is Deep Peace. > > > Bill i accept your advise.... in respect of deep peace... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 1, 2006 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:30:01 -0000 > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > > read it > > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > > only one? > > > > I would > > > > > just call it consciousness. The concept of soul is meant to > > > define an > > > > > illusory spiritual multiplicity that runs around hopping in > > and out > > > > of bodies. > > > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > But Phil, what's the point of talking about *consciousness* > > > > if there is only one? > > > > > > > > Re: > > > > " The concept of soul is meant to define an illusory > > > > spiritual multiplicity... " > > > > All you are saying is that *ordinarily* it is used > > > > as such. But Marc was quite clear in how he was using > > > > the term. So why argue with his definition? That's *my* > > > > point. > > > > > > > > There are so many words, especially spiritual/metaphysical > > > > terms, that are used in vastly different ways by different > > > > writers. It is senseless, it seems to me, to argue about > > > > what is the " right " way to define a term. What is important, > > > > rather, is to be clear at the outset in how one defines a > > > > term being used, especially if it is one that can be > > > > intended in different ways. And " soul " is certainly such > > > > a word. Myself, I try to stay away from words like " soul " , > > > > " Love " , even " Truth " for the very reason that they can be > > > > taken to mean very different things. > > > > > > > > But if a writer *does* use such a term and is very clear > > > > from the outset as to the definition of the term that is > > > > intended, then to attack the statements of such a writer > > > > according to a definition of the term that is different > > > > from what the writer set out, that seems irrational, in > > > > my view (which I am not attributing to you, Phil). > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' > > > definition > > > > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically > > vauge > > > and > > > > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier > > > and an > > > > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us > > > would call > > > > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even > > > more obscure by > > > > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only > > > seen used > > > > to describe an individual spirit. > > > > > > > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly > > arbitrary > > > > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then > > > using it in place of > > > > another common term. > > > > > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > > Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. > > > > > > I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts > > > from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing > > > his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point > > > of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and > > > liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > > of what ignorance look like > > > > Marc > > > > you're too much Marc! ) > > you have a point, not so much about Phil, as > about how -- and this is TOTALLY subjective impression -- > some seem to want to discuss the " illusions " as being > real, that they want to paint in big letters how > the dual nature of human existence is indeed a fact > etc. etc.... > > What's the point in arguing that " illusion is real " ? > > I guess if illusion *seems* real to one then it can make > sense to say it *is* real. But really, that's a > contradiction. > > > Bill " Whats the point in arguing that illusion is real " ...... good question..... true that the dual human nature is a fact.....this happen to nearly all who got birth one day.... i think it's also true that exactly this human nature can feel some non-duality......more and more.......in the lifelong preparation.....to the day of death...... depending this (inner) preperations....death become as unreal....as life already Is......and ever have been Marc Ps: please read this words....with your " poetic license " ....again thank you Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/1/2006 3:27:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:10:28 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > Since we all have a 'sense of self', it hardly seems necessary to explain > it. When somebody yells, " Hey Bill! " , and you think, " Hey, that's me " . That > comes from your sense that you are this creature called Bill. Bill: What you seem to be saying is that you cannot imagine not having a sense of self. And if you cannot imagine it, then you conclude that everyone must have a sense of self. But that is not true. That " not having a sense of self " is virtually impossible to describe does not change the fact. Phil: And the fact to which you refer is that you do not have a sense of self, and further that you cannot even recall the sense of self you had waaaay back before you lost it, and so you can't identify with what I say when I say " sense of self " ? Are you aware of your deception? Do you know that even the greatest enlightened master understands and experiences the sense of self even if he knows it not to be valid? The sense of self is all that enables you to function in the world at all. > A " Collection of thoughts " is a set of thoughts that all have a common > theme. In this case, they are all self referential thoughts, such as 'my body, my > mind, my thoughts, I am an artist, I am a father, I'm sad, I'm happy'. That > sort of thing. > > A " Set of beliefs " have the same self referential theme, such as, 'There are > 6.5 billion humans on the planet' or 'we all have our own opinions' or 'life > is short'. Beliefs and thoughts are the same except that a belief may, > itself, be a collection of thoughts. > > A thought may not be an object, but certainly it's not difficult to > conceptualize a collection of ideas, such as you might write down for a proposal, or > a set of thoughts that you might put in a journal. > > Does that make my comments more better clearer? > > Phil > You say a thought is not an object, and I concur. That the notion of a collection of thoughts is not difficult to conceptualize (for you, not for me) does not make it a meaningful notion. Here's a way to perhaps understand what I am saying: Consider sensations instead of thoughts. A sensation is fleeting, is it not? So what sense would there be to talk about a " collection of sensations " ? Maybe my mathematical background is getting in the way of understanding you, as for me the notion of " collection " has a very sharp, formal meaning. I.e. for me a collection is a " set " . Do you mean by collection something more ambiguous, hazy? In Buddhism there is a teaching of the Buddha referred to as the Five Aggregates or Skandhas: The five aggregates (skandhas) are the scheme the Buddha chose to describe the nature of the individual human existence. It is a common doctrine among virtually all schools of Buddhist thought, being basic to the Buddha's philosophical teachings. The remarkable aspect of it is that it describes the human existance as a combination of physical and mental elements without recourse to the idea of a soul that is distinct from the mind, and -- most especially -- does not assert any governing agent that can be identified as a self within the individual. That is to say, each of the five aggregates is an equal component of the individual, which amounts to a conventional self only when all are present and functioning. Briefly, the five aggregates are: the material organism (ruupa); sensation (vedanaa); conception (sa~nj~naa); volition (sam.skaara); and consciousness (vij~nana). So perhaps your use of the term collection is along the lines of the *aggregation of* the " five aggregates " . Bill Sorry, Bill. I have no better way to explain the obvious. It seems another horse has died. A moment please...............................Amen. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:31:54 -0000 " billrishel " <illusyn Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > You seem to have gained a complete understanding of Marc's 'soul' definition > from his short comments. I found them to be characteristically vauge and > marginally comprehensible, though partly due to a language barrier and an > unusual personal style. He seemed to be describing what most of us would call > consciousness so I wondered why he chose to make his writing even more obscure by > borrowing a term that, in 30 years of spiritual studies, I've only seen used > to describe an individual spirit. > > What would seem irrational to me would be the seemingly arbitrary > redefinition of one of the most common spiritual terms, and then using it in place of > another common term. > > Phil Well, it seems that we have more or less come to terms then. I suggest that you perhaps have been viewing Marc's posts from an analytic point of view, whereas I have been viewing his posts from a poetic point of view. From a poetic point of view there is much more latitude for ambiguity and liberty in the use of terms (it is called " poetic license " Bill Okay, Marc the poet it is. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:33:05 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Hi Bill, interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have been existed before..... this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... Marc Buddhism has a wonderful way of complicating simplicity with the 5 aggregates and the 4 noble truths and the 8 this and the 14 that. It's the attempt to make simplicity comprehensible to simple minds. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:08 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic language......for analytic people..... i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression of what ignorance look like Marc Yes! I am writing a book. I'll be sure to save a copy for you. Hehe. What ignorance looks like is a mind that remains stagnant and shallow, all the while rumbling just below the surface with struggle and judgment and attachment that is self righteously justified as wisdom and so isn't even noticed. It's a pity that the only tool that God gave us to transcend the boundaries of consciousness lies there like mush because it's believed to be the enemy. BTW, there is very little analysis going on in my mind. It's not necessary in order to see, only when I try to make sense of the cryptic mental confusion I find here. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:35:26 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. Please > > read it > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > about > > soul. > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is only > > one? > > > > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > > > Len > > > > > > there is not much " soul " in this your words...... seem that there is one soul....or " many " souls.....in you, missing however... Marc Is this an attachment to this your concept, Marc? Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:33:05 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Hi Bill, > > interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... > > maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the > sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have > been existed before..... > > this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... > > all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions > > when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts > rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example > by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... > > > > Marc > > > > > Buddhism has a wonderful way of complicating simplicity with the 5 > aggregates and the 4 noble truths and the 8 this and the 14 that. It's the attempt to > make simplicity comprehensible to simple minds. > > Phil > > Hi Phil, again, Phil.....the truth can't be catched with the mind only..... you told about love.....yes, mainly the love to Self.....is what bring most of fruits.......pure love i know that many....more and more change religions.....change philosophies.....theories.....concepts..... just like they change the car.... thats not of my business.....realy not.... the only entity what need a " change " is ourself...... just the change from self....to Self.....thats all one need to to in life......to don't die....one day....like an idiot there is no other task of life than Self-Realisation this is about love....mainly..... and not mainly about mind and intellectual concepts..... love is endless higher and stronger than intellect..... an intellect can have a very " successful life " ......but what if the person can't realy enjoy this successful story.......when the heart is missing Marc > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:08 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > language......for analytic people..... > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > of what ignorance look like > > Marc > > > Yes! I am writing a book. I'll be sure to save a copy for you. Hehe. > What ignorance looks like is a mind that remains stagnant and shallow, all > the while rumbling just below the surface with struggle and judgment and > attachment that is self righteously justified as wisdom and so isn't even noticed. > It's a pity that the only tool that God gave us to transcend the boundaries > of consciousness lies there like mush because it's believed to be the enemy. > > BTW, there is very little analysis going on in my mind. It's not necessary > in order to see, only when I try to make sense of the cryptic mental confusion > I find here. > > Phil > you realy are writing a book...?.... will think about....if i would (try to) read it....one day lol Marc > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:08 -0000 > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an > expression > > of what ignorance look like > > > > Marc > > > > > > Yes! I am writing a book. I'll be sure to save a copy for you. Hehe. > > What ignorance looks like is a mind that remains stagnant and > shallow, all > > the while rumbling just below the surface with struggle and > judgment and > > attachment that is self righteously justified as wisdom and so > isn't even noticed. > > It's a pity that the only tool that God gave us to transcend the > boundaries > > of consciousness lies there like mush because it's believed to be > the enemy. > > > > BTW, there is very little analysis going on in my mind. It's not > necessary > > in order to see, only when I try to make sense of the cryptic > mental confusion > > I find here. > > > > Phil > > > > you realy are writing a book...?.... > > will think about....if i would (try to) read it....one day > > lol > > Marc Ps: but i think your book will be very much " cryptic " .....causing much confusion....indeed.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:35:26 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > Please > > > read it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > only > > > one? > > > > > > > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > there is not much " soul " in this your words...... > > seem that there is one soul....or " many " souls.....in you, missing > > however... > > Marc > > > > Is this an attachment to this your concept, Marc? > > Phil > > > what concept?.... Phil....again.....you have nothing but concepts flowing through your mind.... i think that Len maybe know what i meant....or not..... i didn't need a concept to write about my intiution.... (you seem to be attached to me).... did i hurt your proud ego yesterday....?.... Phil....again......i'm not interested in your mind-business.... Marc > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Is there only one soul or a completely soulless existence, what blind superstition is this? Should we follow a principle even to logical absurdity? Look at the inference to the very real multiplicity of locations. Do you and I share the same location? Why do I peer into the contents of what could be termed my mind (as if from some ethereal location), and yet your mind is closed off to me (as if by great distance or other barrier)? Surely as there can be no duplicity in non- dualism, I must invalidate the evidence to the contrary using whatever means at my disposal. However, it seems logical and cannot be refuted easily by argument, so I must attack the originator! Thus I must be a lunatic! What other evidence is needed but my constantly answering both sides of the argument. :-) Meth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Is there only one soul or a completely soulless existence, what blind > superstition is this? Should we follow a principle even to logical > absurdity? Look at the inference to the very real multiplicity of > locations. Do you and I share the same location? Why do I peer into the > contents of what could be termed my mind (as if from some ethereal > location), and yet your mind is closed off to me (as if by great > distance or other barrier)? Surely as there can be no duplicity in non- > dualism, I must invalidate the evidence to the contrary using whatever > means at my disposal. However, it seems logical and cannot be refuted > easily by argument, so I must attack the originator! Thus I must be a > lunatic! What other evidence is needed but my constantly answering both > sides of the argument. :-) > > Meth there is only one soul there is no logic existing to give this one soul a definition if the soul could be written down in a definition......everything would disappear....in just a moment of time i know how deep are the attachments to this appearing world....which is nothing but fiction...... the source of this fiction is nothing else but the ego-mind an ego-mind is used to sit there....calculating, thinking, inventing, playing, writing, sleeping...... nearly impossible for an ego-mind to " imagine " something else but there we are..... when the intellect come to an end....with all possible imaginations.....and still being unsatisfied.....means, with restless mind then there is soul appearing.....the inner voice of truth...... the key to hear this voice....is deep inner love...... and there we are..... when this inner love is missing......there is complete confusion.....coming...and going..... just like dream during sleep is coming....and going.....daily wish your heart....leaving a message Marc > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > wrote: > > > > Is there only one soul or a completely soulless existence, what > blind > > superstition is this? Should we follow a principle even to logical > > absurdity? Look at the inference to the very real multiplicity of > > locations. Do you and I share the same location? Why do I peer into > the > > contents of what could be termed my mind (as if from some ethereal > > location), and yet your mind is closed off to me (as if by great > > distance or other barrier)? Surely as there can be no duplicity in > non- > > dualism, I must invalidate the evidence to the contrary using > whatever > > means at my disposal. However, it seems logical and cannot be > refuted > > easily by argument, so I must attack the originator! Thus I must be > a > > lunatic! What other evidence is needed but my constantly answering > both > > sides of the argument. :-) > > > > Meth > > > > there is only one soul > > there is no logic existing to give this one soul a definition > > if the soul could be written down in a definition......everything > would disappear....in just a moment of time > > i know how deep are the attachments to this appearing world....which > is nothing but fiction...... > the source of this fiction is nothing else but the ego-mind > > an ego-mind is used to sit there....calculating, thinking, inventing, > playing, writing, sleeping...... > nearly impossible for an ego-mind to " imagine " something else > > but there we are..... > > when the intellect come to an end....with all possible > imaginations.....and still being unsatisfied.....means, with restless > mind > then there is soul appearing.....the inner voice of truth...... > > the key to hear this voice....is deep inner love...... > > and there we are..... > > when this inner love is missing......there is complete > confusion.....coming...and going..... > just like dream during sleep is coming....and going.....daily > > > wish your heart....leaving a message > > Marc > > > What of the separate locations? Or does your one soul manifest 6- billion distinct identities/ personalities, each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment. That would be one major schizo By the way, an ellipsis has three dots. Meth Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " > <dennis_travis33@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " methusalum " <methusalum@> > > wrote: > > > > > > Is there only one soul or a completely soulless existence, what > > blind > > > superstition is this? Should we follow a principle even to > logical > > > absurdity? Look at the inference to the very real multiplicity > of > > > locations. Do you and I share the same location? Why do I peer > into > > the > > > contents of what could be termed my mind (as if from some > ethereal > > > location), and yet your mind is closed off to me (as if by great > > > distance or other barrier)? Surely as there can be no duplicity > in > > non- > > > dualism, I must invalidate the evidence to the contrary using > > whatever > > > means at my disposal. However, it seems logical and cannot be > > refuted > > > easily by argument, so I must attack the originator! Thus I must > be > > a > > > lunatic! What other evidence is needed but my constantly > answering > > both > > > sides of the argument. :-) > > > > > > Meth > > > > > > > > there is only one soul > > > > there is no logic existing to give this one soul a definition > > > > if the soul could be written down in a definition......everything > > would disappear....in just a moment of time > > > > i know how deep are the attachments to this appearing > world....which > > is nothing but fiction...... > > the source of this fiction is nothing else but the ego-mind > > > > an ego-mind is used to sit there....calculating, thinking, > inventing, > > playing, writing, sleeping...... > > nearly impossible for an ego-mind to " imagine " something else > > > > but there we are..... > > > > when the intellect come to an end....with all possible > > imaginations.....and still being unsatisfied.....means, with > restless > > mind > > then there is soul appearing.....the inner voice of truth...... > > > > the key to hear this voice....is deep inner love...... > > > > and there we are..... > > > > when this inner love is missing......there is complete > > confusion.....coming...and going..... > > just like dream during sleep is coming....and going.....daily > > > > > > wish your heart....leaving a message > > > > Marc > > > > > > > What of the separate locations? Or does your one soul manifest 6- > billion distinct identities/ personalities, each with its own pattern > of perceiving and interacting with the environment. That would be one > major schizo > > By the way, an ellipsis has three dots. > > Meth the locations appear to be seperated....by the mind(power).... yes....the " billions entities " exist through the one existing infinite soul ..... the manifestation of this infinite soul.....is a progressive development of (inner) balance...... until the day....on which this your kind of questions are no based on a dual mind..... means....are dissolved in Oneness by the way.......take care that your dual perception of things don't lead to your mentionned " schizo " .... Marc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 5:34:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:11:51 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 11:33:05 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > Hi Bill, > > interesting this words about the " five aggregates " ...... > > maybe when all this five aggregates are well " balanced " ........the > sense of " individual " dissapear.......just like it never would have > been existed before..... > > this real " individual " ....is nothing but the One being...... > > all are this One being......without (individual) exceptions > > when this five aggregates aren't balanced....then there are conflicts > rising......this conflicts are represented (reflected) as for example > by some exclusive and absolutly fantastic ego minds ...in here..... > > > > Marc > > > > > Buddhism has a wonderful way of complicating simplicity with the 5 > aggregates and the 4 noble truths and the 8 this and the 14 that. It's the attempt to > make simplicity comprehensible to simple minds. > > Phil > > Hi Phil, again, Phil.....the truth can't be catched with the mind only..... you told about love.....yes, mainly the love to Self.....is what bring most of fruits.......pure love i know that many....more and more change religions.....change philosophies.....theories.....concepts..... just like they change the car.... thats not of my business.....realy not.... the only entity what need a " change " is ourself...... just the change from self....to Self.....thats all one need to to in life......to don't die....one day....like an idiot there is no other task of life than Self-Realisation this is about love....mainly..... and not mainly about mind and intellectual concepts..... love is endless higher and stronger than intellect..... an intellect can have a very " successful life " ......but what if the person can't realy enjoy this successful story.......when the heart is missing Marc Because my mind is active, please don't assume my heart is asleep. Passion awakens both. You took issue with me the other day for acknowledging the value of my heart. It seems nothing measures up to your standards. I would be pleased to see you as peaceful and loving as the image you wish to convey. This is not always what I see behind your words. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 5:34:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:19:29 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:08 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > language......for analytic people..... > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an expression > of what ignorance look like > > Marc > > > Yes! I am writing a book. I'll be sure to save a copy for you. Hehe. > What ignorance looks like is a mind that remains stagnant and shallow, all > the while rumbling just below the surface with struggle and judgment and > attachment that is self righteously justified as wisdom and so isn't even noticed. > It's a pity that the only tool that God gave us to transcend the boundaries > of consciousness lies there like mush because it's believed to be the enemy. > > BTW, there is very little analysis going on in my mind. It's not necessary > in order to see, only when I try to make sense of the cryptic mental confusion > I find here. > > Phil > you realy are writing a book...?.... will think about....if i would (try to) read it....one day lol Marc Here's the real kicker which hopefully will give you a chuckle: It's entitled " Simplicity " . This is the nature of truth. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 5:34:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:34:35 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:58:08 -0000 > > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33@> > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > maybe Phil is preparing a nice book.....another book....one more > > book.......of theories and concepts......a book of analytic > > language......for analytic people..... > > > > i mean...people who are in the mind-business.... > > creating all the time " new " fabulous ...dreams.....as an > expression > > of what ignorance look like > > > > Marc > > > > > > Yes! I am writing a book. I'll be sure to save a copy for you. Hehe. > > What ignorance looks like is a mind that remains stagnant and > shallow, all > > the while rumbling just below the surface with struggle and > judgment and > > attachment that is self righteously justified as wisdom and so > isn't even noticed. > > It's a pity that the only tool that God gave us to transcend the > boundaries > > of consciousness lies there like mush because it's believed to be > the enemy. > > > > BTW, there is very little analysis going on in my mind. It's not > necessary > > in order to see, only when I try to make sense of the cryptic > mental confusion > > I find here. > > > > Phil > > > > you realy are writing a book...?.... > > will think about....if i would (try to) read it....one day > > lol > > Marc Ps: but i think your book will be very much " cryptic " .....causing much confusion....indeed.... Now there's the trick! How to lead the mind gently to the edge of the cliff, feed it a bit of mugwort, and give it a nudge. Clarity isn't the goal. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 3, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 5:34:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:39:17 -0000 " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Nisargadatta , ADHHUB wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/1/2006 8:21:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, > Nisargadatta writes: > > Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:35:26 -0000 > " dennis_travis33 " <dennis_travis33 > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > Nisargadatta , " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/28/2006 7:54:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:01:43 -0000 > > > " lissbon2002 " <lissbon2002@> > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > Nisargadatta , ADHHUB@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 2/27/2006 11:25:44 AM Pacific Standard > > Time, > > > > Nisargadatta writes: > > > > > > > > " billrishel " <illusyn@> > > > > Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Marc, > > > > > > > > > > I have posted some text about " soul " by Krishnamurti. > Please > > > read it > > > > > and maybe it is helpful for you to quit writing nonsens > > about > > > soul. > > > > > > > > > > Werner > > > > > > > > But Werner, Krishnamurti is only speaking with regard to > > > > " soul " in the context of separation/division, for he defines > > > > soul in the beginning as: > > > > " The soul is a division, born of illusion. " > > > > > > > > But as Marc is using the term " soul " it is not a *division*. > > > > Surely you don't object to, and regard as nonsense, the mere > > > > use of the four letters s-o-u-l strung together regardless > > > > of how it is defined? > > > > > > > > Or do I misunderstand Marc's comments? For he says: > > > > " soul is formless.....infinite.... > > > > therefore....there can only be one soul existing..... > > > > i mean....how could one imagine two infinite souls.....? " > > > > > > > > Sounds pretty nondual to me! > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the point of creating a concept of soul if there is > only > > > one? > > > > > > > > > The same as the point of creating a concept of only one soul ;-) > > > > > > Len > > > > > > > > > > there is not much " soul " in this your words...... > > seem that there is one soul....or " many " souls.....in you, missing > > however... > > Marc > > > > Is this an attachment to this your concept, Marc? > > Phil > > > what concept?.... Phil....again.....you have nothing but concepts flowing through your mind.... i think that Len maybe know what i meant....or not..... i didn't need a concept to write about my intiution.... (you seem to be attached to me).... did i hurt your proud ego yesterday....?.... Phil....again......i'm not interested in your mind-business.... Marc I wish you well, my friend............... Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 3, 2006 In a message dated 3/2/2006 5:34:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, Nisargadatta writes: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 11:44:43 -0000 " methusalum " <methusalum Re: Is There an Inside, a Within? Is there only one soul or a completely soulless existence, what blind superstition is this? Should we follow a principle even to logical absurdity? Look at the inference to the very real multiplicity of locations. Do you and I share the same location? Why do I peer into the contents of what could be termed my mind (as if from some ethereal location), and yet your mind is closed off to me (as if by great distance or other barrier)? Surely as there can be no duplicity in non- dualism, I must invalidate the evidence to the contrary using whatever means at my disposal. However, it seems logical and cannot be refuted easily by argument, so I must attack the originator! Thus I must be a lunatic! What other evidence is needed but my constantly answering both sides of the argument. :-) Meth The conclusion of lunacy accepted. Hehe. How " real " is multiplicity? Admittedly, all perceptual evidence indicates this but perception is the illusion, isn't it? I have no problem with the idea of soul to explain the evolution of awareness over many lifetimes, but this soul multiplicity is also illusion. We 'die' to the physical illusion, only to enter a nonphysical one. I have no trouble with that. The Truth, however, is Oneness. Phil Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
